Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 03.2017 % + W.P.(C) 427/2014 & CM No.851/2014 SITI CABLE NETWORKS LIMITED Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, : Mr S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. with Mr Vivek Sarin, Mr Mohd. Danish, Mr Virender Thakur Mr Mohit Paul, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Astha Nigam + W.P.(C) 475/2014 & CM Nos. 933/2014, 2648/2014, 6401/2014, 21185/2014 & 6571/2015 INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the... Petitioner : Mr Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Ms Vandana Jaisingh, Ms Meghna Mishra, Ms Kanupriya, Ms Jasmeet Singh and Mr Naman Joshi For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, Mr Mohit Paul, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Astha ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 03.2017 % + W.P.(C) 427/2014 & CM No.851/2014 SITI CABLE NETWORKS LIMITED Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, : Mr S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. with Mr Vivek Sarin, Mr Mohd. Danish, Mr Virender Thakur Mr Mohit Paul, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Astha Nigam + W.P.(C) 475/2014 & CM Nos. 933/2014, 2648/2014, 6401/2014, 21185/2014 & 6571/2015 INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the... Petitioner : Mr Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Ms Vandana Jaisingh, Ms Meghna Mishra, Ms Kanupriya, Ms Jasmeet Singh and Mr Naman Joshi For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, Mr Mohit Paul, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Astha ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008BusLR366(Del); 147(2008)DLT561
Sanjiv Khanna, J1. At the very outset, we begin with the Caveat, which is almost universal whenever constitutional validity of a legislation is challenged, while deciding the question of constitutional validity, we do not pronounce judgment on whether the impugned legislation is desirable and should have been enacted. A legislation may be constitutional, yet it may not be desirable [Denis v. U.S. reported in (1950) 341 U.S. 492.2. The present Writ Petitions challenge the legality and validity of some of the provisions of the the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) and the amended Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Prevention of Advertisements and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', for short). It may be noted that Writ Petition (Civi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc. - 508 U.S. 307 (1993) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. v. BEACH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 92-603. Argued March 29, 1993-Decided June 1, 1993 The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (Act) provides that cable television systems be franchised by local governmental authorities, but exempts, inter alia, facilities serving "only subscribers in 1 or more multiple unit dwellings under common ownership, control, or management, unless such ... facilities usEe] any public right-of-way," 602(7)(B). Mter petitioner Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ruled that a satellite master antenna television (SMATV) system-which typically receives a satellite signal through a rooftop dish and then retransmits the signal by wire to units within a building or a building complex-is subject to the franchise requirement if its transm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1996)2MLJ603
K.A. Swami, C.J.1. When Writ Appeal No. 184 of 1996 came up for hearing, we considered it necessary to hear Writ Petition No. 16589 of 1995 and all other connected writ petitions. Accordingly, all the connected writ petitions are posted along with the writ appeal and we have heard both sides.2. In all these writ petitions, the validity of the amendment to Rule 14 as introduced by G.O.Ms. 1326, dated 6.9.1995 is challenged on the grounds that the amendment is not consistent or in conformity with the object mentioned in the preamble to the order, that the amendment is arbitrary and unreasonable and seriously affects the rights of the owners or proprietors of the permanent cinemas.3. G.O.Ms. 1326, dated 6.9.1995 substituted Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), Sub-rules (1) and (2) as existed before the substitution were as follows:14(1) (a) In areas other than pilgrim towns, tourist centres, municip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp - 467 U.S. 691 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U.S. 691 (1984) Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp No. 82-1795 Argued February 21, 1984 Decided June 18, 1984 467 U.S. 691 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Although Oklahoma does not prohibit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages within the State, it prohibits, in general, the advertising of such beverages. In 1980, the Oklahoma Attorney General determined that the State's advertising ban prohibited cable television systems operating in Oklahoma from retransmitting out-of-state signals containing alcoholic beverage commercials, particularly wine commercials. Petitioners, operators of cable television systems in Oklahoma -- who, with other such operators, had been warned by respondent Director of the Oklahoma Alcoholic Beverage Control Board that they would be criminally prosecuted if they carried out-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC - 512 U.S. 622 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No. 93-44. Argued January 12, 1994-Decided June 27,1994 Concerned that a competitive imbalance between cable television and over-the-air broadcasters was endangering the broadcasters' ability to compete for a viewing audience and thus for necessary operating revenues, Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act require cable television systems to devote a specified portion of their channels to the transmission of local commercial and public broadcast stations. Soon after the Act became law, appellants, numerous cable programmers and operators, challenged the constitutionality of the must-carry provisions. The District Court granted the United States and intervenor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2750; 2010(1)BomCR463; JT2009(10)SC157; 2009(10)SCALE148; (2009)8SCC235; (2009)24VST552(SC); 2009AIRSCW5189
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Introduction:2. Doctrine of unjust enrichment, as opposed to doctrine of retention, is the core question involved herein. It arises out of a judgment and order dated 21.10.2008 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 22 of 2006.Background facts:3. Respondent is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. It inter alia is engaged in the business of operating a multiplex theatre, commonly known as Fame Adlabs in the town of Mumbai for screening of films in the said theatre. Indisputably, the provisions of the Bombay Entertainments Duty Act, 1923 (for short 'the Act') are applicable to the said multiplex theatre. The State of Maharashtra, however, adopted a policy decision to provide certain exemptions in the matter of payment of entertainment duties. Entertainment duty is payable at the rate of 45% on payment for admission by the proprietors so far as the multiplex theatres constituted within the limits of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on:09. 03.2017 % + W.P.(C) 427/2014 & CM No.851/2014 SITI CABLE NETWORKS LIMITED Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the... Petitioner For the... RESPONDENTS : Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, : Mr S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Adv. with Mr Vivek Sarin, Mr Mohd. Danish, Mr Virender Thakur Mr Mohit Paul, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Astha Nigam + W.P.(C) 475/2014 & CM Nos. 933/2014, 2648/2014, 6401/2014, 21185/2014 & 6571/2015 INDUSIND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LTD. Petitioner versus GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:-"For the... Petitioner : Mr Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. with Ms Vandana Jaisingh, Ms Meghna Mishra, Ms Kanupriya, Ms Jasmeet Singh and Mr Naman Joshi For the... RESPONDENTS: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Sr. Adv. with Mr Naushad Ahmad Khan, Mr Mohit Paul, Mr Kunal Bahri and Ms Astha ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5253 OF2010Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ... Appellant versus Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others ... Respondents With Civil Appeal Nos. 951-952 of 2005 Civil Appeal No.3298 of 2005 Civil Appeal No.3299 of 2005 Civil Appeal No.4529 of 2005 Civil Appeal Nos. 5834-5836 of 2005 Civil Appeal No.5837 of 2005 Civil Appeal No.6049 of 2005 Civil Appeal No.802 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.2731 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.2794 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.3504 of 2006 Civil Appeal Nos. 4965-4966 of 2007 Civil Appeal No.177 of 2008 Civil Appeal Nos. 598-599 of 2008 Civil Appeal No.5184 of 2010 Civil Appeal No.5873 of 2010 Civil Appeal No.6068 of 2010 Civil Appeal No.6255 of 2010 Civil Appeal No.D28298 of 2010 T.C. (C) No.39 of 2010 Civil Appeal Nos. 271-281 of 2011 JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J.1. By an order dated 6.2.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No.3298 of 2005 Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Authority) v. Bha...
Tag this Judgment!